| Literature DB >> 35407196 |
Afsheen Mansoor1,2, Muhammad Talal Khan3, Mazhar Mehmood4, Zohaib Khurshid5, Muhammad Ishtiaq Ali1, Asif Jamal1.
Abstract
The prevalence of dental caries has been largely consonant over time despite the enhancement in dental technologies. This study aims to produce novel GIC restorative material by incorporating TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis for the treatment of dental caries. The TiO2 nanoparticles were prepared by inoculating a fresh culture of Bacillus subtilis into a nutrient broth for 24 h, which was then characterized by XRD, DRS, FTIR, AFM, SEM, TEM and EDX. These TiO2 nanoparticles were incorporated in GIC restorative material at different concentrations (0-10% TiO2 -GIC) and were tested for their mechanical properties in a universal testing machine. The XRD analysis revealed synthesis of anatase and rutile-phased TiO2 nanoparticles with a particle size of 70.17 nm that was further confirmed by SEM and TEM analysis. The EDX spectrum indicated prominent peaks of titanium and oxygen with no impurities in the prepared material. Treatment with 5% TiO2 -GIC proved to be most effective for the treatment of dental caries with no observable cytotoxic effect. An increase in the compressive strength of TiO2 nanoparticle-reinforced GIC was observed as the concentration of the TiO2 nanoparticles was increased up to 5%; subsequently, the compressive strength was lowered. An increase in the flexural strength was observed in GIC containing 0%, 3% and 5% TiO2 nanoparticles sequentially. Based on the results, it can be concluded that Bacillus subtilis-derived TiO2 nanoparticles have excellent potential for developing next generation of restorative materials for dental issues.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus subtilis; biogenic synthesis; dental caries; glass ionomer cement (GIC); nanoparticles; titanium oxide (TiO2)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407196 PMCID: PMC9000351 DOI: 10.3390/nano12071078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1XRD pattern of TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis.
Figure 2DRS pattern, showing energy band gap of TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis.
Figure 3A three-dimensional image of TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis obtained using atomic force microscope at (a) low resolution and (b) high resolution.
Figure 4Scanning electron microscopic image of TiO2 nanoparticles at (a) 1000× (b) 5000×.
Figure 5Transmission electron microscopic image of (a) TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis (b) Selected area electron diffraction peaks.
Figure 6Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic analysis of TiO2 nanoparticles displaying the (a) SEM image with EDX Spots. (b) Elemental composition showing peaks of titanium and oxygen.
Figure 7FTIR spectrum of TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis.
Comparison of cytotoxicity analysis between control group and TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis at various days with SE (Standard Error).
| Cell Viability of Control Group (Water) | Cell Viability of TiO2 Nanoparticles | Mean Difference (SE) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cell viability of water at day 1 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 1 | 1.36 (0.34) | 0.001 |
| Cell viability of water at day 3 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 3 | 3.93 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of water at day 7 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 7 | 6.81 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of water at day 21 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 21 | 8.29 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of water at day 30 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles day at 30 | 9.87 (0.34) | 0.00 |
Figure 8Cell viability (%) of TiO2 nanoparticles at various days in comparison to the control group.
Inter-group comparison of cytotoxicity analysis of TiO2 nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis across days 1, 3, 7, 21 and 30.
| Cell Viability of TiO2 Nanoparticles | Cell Viability Comparison at Different Days | Mean Difference (SE) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 1 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 3 | 2.57 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 7 | 5.45 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 21 | 6.93 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 30 | 8.51 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 3 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 1 | −2.57 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 7 | 2.88 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 21 | 4.36 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 30 | 5.94 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 7 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 1 | −5.45 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 3 | −2.88 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 21 | 1.48 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 30 | 3.06 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 21 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 1 | −6.93 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 3 | −4.36 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 7 | −1.48 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 30 | 1.58 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 30 | Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 1 | −8.51 (0.34) | 0.00 |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 3 | −5.94 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 7 | −3.06 (0.34) | 0.00 | |
| Cell viability of TiO2 nanoparticles at day 21 | −1.58 (0.34) | 0.00 |
Figure 9Morphology of cells in (A) Control group at day 1, (B) TiO2 nanoparticle-treated cells at day 1, (C) Control group at day 7, (D) TiO2 nanoparticle-treated cells at day 7, (E) Control group at day 30, (F) TiO2 nanoparticle-treated cells at day 30.
Figure 10Compressive strength analysis of GIC restorative material containing various concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles.
Inter-group comparisons of compressive strength of GIC restorative material containing various concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles.
| Different % of TiO2 Nanoparticles Incorporated in GIC Restorative Material (TiO2-GIC Samples) | Comparison Groups of TiO2-GIC Samples | Mean Difference | Standard Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | −3.76 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −7.88 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | −4.27 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | −0.47 | 0.19 | 0.11 | |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3.76 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −4.12 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | −0.51 | 0.19 | .066 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3.29 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 7.88 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | 4.12 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3.61 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 7.41 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 4.27 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0.51 | 0.19 | 0.066 | |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −3.61 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3.80 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0.47 | 0.19 | 0.11 |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | −3.29 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −7.41 | 0.19 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | −3.80 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
Figure 11Flexural strength analysis of GIC restorative material containing various concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles.
Inter-group comparisons of flexural strength of GIC restorative material containing various concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles.
| Different % of TiO2 Nanoparticles Incorporated in GIC Restorative Material (TiO2-GIC Samples) | Comparison Groups of TiO2-GIC Samples | Mean Difference | Standard Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | −5.30 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −10.28 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | −6.79 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | −1.00 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 5.30 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −4.98 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | −1.49 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 4.30 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 10.28 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | 4.98 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | 3.49 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 9.28 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 6.79 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | 1.49 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −3.49 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 5.79 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 10% TiO2-GIC Sample | 0% TiO2-GIC Sample | 1.00 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
| 3% TiO2-GIC Sample | −4.30 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 5% TiO2-GIC Sample | −9.28 | 0.14 | 0.00 | |
| 7% TiO2-GIC Sample | −5.79 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
Figure 12SEM images of TiO2-GIC samples at different concentrations after flexural strength testing ((a) = 0%TiO2-GIC, (b) = 3% TiO2-GIC, (c) = 5% TiO2-GIC, (d) = 7% TiO2-GIC and (e) = 10% TiO2-GIC).